A Most Eloquent and Compelling Argument

[Shuckins]

Whitehawk,

Your argument only makes sense if wmd's were the only reason given for the invasion of Iraq.  Saddam's massacre of the Kurds and the Shi-ites was cited from the very beginning as but one of many reasons for taking him down.

A mere handful of American troops have committed atrocities against Iraqi civilians, with a death toll amounting to less than than two score.  Compared to Saddam's 300,000 plus victims, the American "atrocities" are hardly worth mentioning.  We've never fought a conflict in which some of our troops did not go "over the edge."  Find another point to make...this one doesn't hold water.

You're predicting 25 years of occupation?  Did I understand that statement correctly?  Get a grip.  The first troop draw-downs will take place this fall...with more to take place in 2007.  The Iraqi military and police agencies are growing apace, and taking an ever more effective role in securing their country against insurgent attacks.

There is already evidence that the resistance is beginning to run out of steam:

1.  According to news reports posted within the last month by AP and UPI, the insurgency's money supply is drying up.

2.  Zarqawi, the most radical of the insurgent leaders, was apparently betrayed by other insurgents, who had begun to see his indiscriminate killing of the innocent as counter-productive.  

3.  Eleven insurgent groups operating to the north of Baghdad have apparently taken advantage of the new Iraqi government's offer of amnesty to make a proposal of their own...to cease attacking American and government forces if the U.S. will withdraw it's forces within two years.  Such a proposal is problematic, for both sides, but indicates that these groups may finally be coming to the realization that the U.S. is in this struggle for the long-haul, and has every intention of seeing it's plans brought to fruition.

More troops on the ground in Iraq might, in retrospect, have helped get the insurgency under control sooner, but General Frank didn't want them.  I strongly suspect President Bush and the Joint Chiefs would have given him more if he had asked for them, Rumsfeld's wishes notwithstanding.

I am firmly committed to the belief that policies of intervention to take take down dictators and protect the lives and welfare of our fellow man are justified.

Where do YOU stand on that issue?

[1epic1]

Dont kill him, let him go to prision in the US...just think what the prisioners will do to him!!! I can see it now...Saddam got 2 broken bones, a concusion, internal bleeding, and was "tended" to by other prisioners all in the first 30 minutes in prision. LET HIM SUFFER!!

Then if he still lives after 5 years, kill him how he killed his victims.

[RedTop]

Hi Mav,

Originally posted by Maverick
Redtop,

I understand what you are saying but the same questions still remain. What will you do with the population of the country you have just overcome?

Lets use an example. We decide to eliminate syria. We attack and destroy their military and eliminate tyhe entire upper level of government including their royalty. The military collapses after a mere few weeks of intense air operations and a fast strike with ground forces into the capital. You've won the conflict.

Now what are you going to do? Are you just going to pack up and say "thanks for the target practice, we'll be seeing ya"? Are you going to keep troops on the ground to watch over the oil fields? Who will keep the entire population from becoming a guerilla force over night? What is the next step? If you leave, do you think thewy will trade with us, take money for oil or do you thknj they will do everything they can to keep us from getting the oil? Will the entire population of the country be considered an enemy combatant?

 

Interesting questions Mav. Well , I guess it would depend on what they were attacked for. If it was a country , like syria , who isn't at all dodging the fact that they don't like us , then the population would become a problem. If they were posturing for War with the US and we basically whipped em , then yes I would leave a force behind. Relocate people from one area and make it a base. Stratigically placed. Put gaurds on the oil and not pay for it as much as take what we needed. Thier economy , which I don't know nor want to look up , would be based on what they could do with what they have left. Talks would be held with what leadership was left and see what kind of an arrangement could be reached for government.

I think there is a difference between concouring and occupying. I know you agree. We are occupying Iraq. We will leave. They will be on thier own. Do I think we should leave a small force behind to be a HELP incase they need help.

I guess I should say a couple of things here. If I have a party side it will be a republican. I right now have little confidence in them right now on several issues. I have ZERO in the other side.

I think when fighting a war , or low intensity conflict , whatever you want to call it , you win it. What is the reason to do anything , in a competetion , which is what this is so to speak , if your not trying to do everything you can to win?

War is a dirty business. Innocent people are killed. Anyone that thinks different is not living in reality. As advanced as our wepons systems are this is not a septic war. We are fighting very bad people. They are fighting for a way of life. Not one even CLOSE to what I think is right , but they are resolved. I don't think that the leadership of this country is committed.

I listened to all the info like the rest of the country did , and heard almost everyone in Congress say the same thing. From Right to Left wings and in the middle , they were all for it. But when things aren't going thier way , they all of the sudden get their words mixed up. WHich means they Lie thier sorry azzes off after they read a poll as to what to say. It's disgusting.

Media is looking for any reason to hang our troops. Are they doing right all the time? No. But if you don't see it , then it never happened.

So with all my lil rant done I'll finish with this.

I have no problem when an enemy is caught , and I mean CAUGHT like with the gun in his hand , then shoot him. I don't care. If they are hiding in Mosques , then bomb it. Quit worrying about that CNN guy sitting thier. DON'T TAKE THE MEDIA WITH YOU EVER.

Just untie the hands of our troops and let them fight the fight and take it to the enemy like the enemy is taking it to them.

The execute 1 then we execute 10. They set an IED , we drop a 500 pounder on thier head. They run a road block , don't just shoot , blow them up.

They behead a civilian , Wrap a terorist body in a pigskin , wrapped by a cloth , with the Koran ripped to shreds and a bottle of Budweiser in there to boot. Write a note on the cloth saying "Compliments of the U.S.A.".

Line up 20 terrorists on thier knees , and pop em. Take pictures and send em to Al Ja Zeera.

What are we gonna tick a Muslim off? Do you know who is a terrorist and who is not? ME either.

This country is split in half and not far IMO from breaking. Quit playing political correctness games and get to the task at hand.

Sorry if this sounds crass...perhaps it is just that a rant. I'm just sick of hearing why things cant be done , and never how they could be done.

[Maverick]

Redtop,

I have to agree with you on several of your points regarding the congressional "leadership". I suppose it should be more aptly titled as waffleship.

I asked the questions I did for a specific reason. I guess some hadn't connected the dots but what I was asking about is almost the exact situation we have in Iraq right now. The same situation could go on if we invaded iran and syria only we would have to deal with the populations of 4 countries instead of 2 (iraq and afghanistan).

If you take out the leadership in the country you have to supply a replacement or the vacuum will be filled with someone you very likely do NOT want to have to deal with. The folks who lived there have to continue to live, they won't just go away.

Going on with your last post. Can you step back a moment and look at it again? Take a look at what you proposed as to how to handle the situations. Substitute US troops with Germans and the indigenous people with French, Polish or any of the other countries they over ran and left the Gestapo behind to manage. Is that really what you want? It is what you specified as a response to barbarism.

I would have a very hard time dealing with that as a member of this country and the results that type of response would bring. We would be no better than saddumb. Our military is better than that and I believe the average citizen is as well.

IMO that kind of means of operating would be as bad as just packing up and walking away right after the surrender of the iraq forces.

[RedTop]

Your prolly Right Mav. DO I feel like our troops would be barbarians? I don't think so. Fighting fire with fire with an enemy that dont have the means as was said a few posts ago , would speed the end up I think. I kind of see it Mav as , they really take it to a level. Yet we don't think of that level. The gestapo were doing it first. I wouldn't have had a problem if the ones being terrorized fougt back in the same way or even more harsh. It may sound childish or inhumane. I don't know. But they are fighting with means that go against our morals. Perhaps becoming as ruthless as ther are , if even for a short time , would make them see that we have the means AND the resolve , it would make them think twice before beheading someone else.

I'm prolly wrong , and I have been before , and I have no problem admitting it.

How do we as Americans , in this such a crucial time,  get the Waffleship , to do the right thing.

Is it really so complicated? Is common sense really all that hard to have? What are we going to do here? Why is this country so split? Isn't common sense for Repubs. basically the same as it is for a Demo.?

Just an aside , I have been listening to talk radio. I found Air America. Liberal station. So I have given equal time to each station in the last week or so. It is UNREAL. If this is an idication of where most peaple are at on both sides , then I can't see there EVER being common ground.

[Rolex]

Common sense has little chance of breaking out if people can't find any common ground. Extreme positions such as elevating all westerners, or all arabs, to enemy status can't possibly solve anything.

Mankind hasn't advanced much if the 2,000 year-old words of Julius Caesar still ring true: "All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures."

Escalating the invasion of Iraq to a war against all arabs is certainly a bad precedent no matter how you try to justify it.

The US has been fortunate by the grace of geography to have been insulated from the civilian carnage of post 19th century war. War is not just another "reality show" on TV.

All the chest thumping of the current generation of non-warriors on TV and the internet is just the opposite of the old warriors who saw, smelled, heard and managed to survive a war. I don't know of any WWII, Korean or Vietnam vet who are anything but quiet about it.

People can't possibly think that democracy in Iraq will somehow bring peace. If you added up all the American casualties of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and all the minor skirmishes (Iraq) since, they wouldn't equal half of the American casualties during the Civil War. And that should give you pause to consider the human cost of mixing ideological differences with gunpowder, in a democracy.

So, after the arab 'barbarians' are conquered, whose next?

All of this 'love for the Iraqi people' posturing is hollow, especially when compared to the dictators and despots who have murdered without intervention. Pol Pot murdered anywhere 1.2 million to 2 million people. No moral outrage or invasion by western countries to save those people.

The extreme position of advocating more pre-emptive invasions and attacks turns it all into barbarians fighting barbarians.

The only common ground I can come up with is that arab nations, western nations and Israel want to be left alone, without any outside interference.

[RedTop]

Good post Rolex